Should the Supreme Court place limits on lower judges’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions that temporarily block presidential policies from taking effect?

Yes, there should be limits (42%) – "District judges are exactly that... judging issues for participants in that particular district. This is similar to Governor Dewine of Ohio making decisions that affect Michigan or all states; it should never happen. Serious issues involving the President of the United States, the highest office in the land, should come before the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land."

• "There should be limits on judicial grant of authority to judge. A municipal judge should not have authority to judge and set policy outside that municipality. Same with district judges and all the way up. But that's half the problem - Executive order abuse which began long ago needs to be curtailed by the legislators. If you don't want the president doing what you don't want them to do, write the legislation to establish the boundaries so the courts have something to base their rules upon."

"I think it's reasonable to recognize there has been significant judicial overreach in the last decade. Now, admittedly, that has been driven by what I consider significant executive overreach, but two wrongs don't make a right. Ideally, we work out a way to enable judges to still address unlawful action, perhaps by requiring more than one judge to agree with the injunction (unlikely, given the way our judicial system functions) or requiring a higher bar by which the judge has to measure the desired injunction. I absolutely do NOT want to remove a district judge's ability to issue an injunction; especially now, that's a crucial part of the checks and balances built into our government."

• "Exactly as described in the article, judge shopping. If I don't like a policy implemented by POTUS, but my local judges' view sides w/ POTUS, I can simply "shop around" to find a judge that is in agreement with my views, file the injunction there, and it'll affect the entire country. That's insane and a huge overreach of those judges. The courts, unfortunately, are highly political anymore and it needs to change. These actions severely impact the actions of any president to move forward with the agenda they were hired (voted in) to implement. To be fair, this should go both ways. However, as indicated and to no surprise, the majority of these injunctions (104 of 150) are against Trump. That guy could literally sign an order declaring the sky blue and democrats/liberals would loose their minds in objection and judges would file injunctions saying the sky isn't blue. People are crazy."

No, there shouldn’t be limits (49%) – "If nothing else, these injunctions pause things so well-thought decisions can be made for all in our country. Protecting these judicial rights will ensure all states have this processing time no matter the view of each state's predominant political party."

• "The point of the judicial branch is to ensure that the executive and legislative branches are not violating the constitution, bill of rights or overstepping their authority, this is the whole point of the 3 branch system. Federal Judges responding to federal orders should cover the whole of the nation as the federal government is applying it to the whole of the nation."

"Presidents try to overreach and it is Constitutioally the courts job to restrain them until the case is finally decided. The judge is not stopping the policy permanently, only putting it on hold until the case is decided. This is necessary when a President is moving to upset the rule of law aided by the unwise Supreme Court decision giving the President immunity. This makes him feel entitled to rule like a king."

• "There needs to be checks and balances among the three branches of government. Lower court decisions can be appealed to higher courts so there is a due process."

"It is wholly unreasonable to expect every individual whose birthright citizenship would be revoked to have the resources to fight it in court. Therefore, if there are limits placed on federal injunctions, it will allow for more injustice in this country, and it would affect those with the fewest resources to begin with the most. This would be yet another blow to our standing as a free country."

Unsure/other (9%) – "I’m not huge on politics, so some of this stuff goes over my head. But from how the nationwide injunctions are described in this article, it seems to me like it’s only right for judges to have the ability to limit implementation of federal policies while lower courts argue over their legality… But you can’t deny that the whole “favoritism” thing plays a role in this. Judges are humans, and humans have been known to be ruled by their emotions and individual ambitions from time to time."